Bad Call John IV

The Kerry camp is whining again, and it’s beginning to seem congenital at this point. The Bush campaign plans to release an ad highlighting Kerry’s use of the word “nuisance” in an interview. In it, Kerry referred to terrorists and nuisance in the same context, and they want everyone to know exactly what Kerry meant so that the Bushies don’t twist his words.

Let’s examine:

In the magazine article, a largely analytical cover story by Matt Bai, Kerry is asked “what it would take for Americans to feel safe again.”

”We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they’re a nuisance,” the article states as the Massachusetts senator’s reply.

”As a former law enforcement person, I know we’re never going to end prostitution. We’re never going to end illegal gambling. But we’re going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn’t on the rise. It isn’t threatening people’s lives every day, and fundamentally, it’s something that you continue to fight, but it’s not threatening the fabric of your life.”

Regardless of what the Bush ad will say, it’s clear to me that Kerry does not mean that terrorists are a nuisance today and so he gets that one. But it’s equally clear that he’s willing to live with a certain amount of terrorism, but just so long as we can keep it to the level of where it’s a nuisance like prostitution and illegal gambling.

That’s disturbing. What level of myopia does one need to equate the senseless murder of innocents to streetwalkers or loaded dice? What sort of man could say such a thing: that we can reach an acceptable level of terrorism? What might that level be? How many deaths must we have before it ceases to be a nuisance?

One doesn’t need to take Kerry’s words out of context to see that he’s the wrong man for the job. All it takes is to take him at his word.